LONDON — For Keir Starmer, the crises and climbdowns just keep getting faster. The British prime minister, facing questions about his judgment in appointing Peter Mandelson as U.K. ambassador to Washington despite his Jeffrey Epstein links, pledged on Wednesday to publish a cache of emails and texts between the ex-Labour peer and his top team — on his own terms. But hours later he was forced to toughen up independent scrutiny of this document release in the face of a revolt by his own MPs, who are horrified by the scandal and fear opposition accusations of a cover-up will stick. Taken alone, this technical U-turn will not enter any history books. But the last-minute drama around it puts the already weak Labour leader in further peril. Nervous MPs in his governing party, now awaiting the document dump with deep unease, are rounding with renewed ferocity on the PM and his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney. POLITICO spoke to 20 Labour MPs and current and former officials for this piece. “We need a head,” said one moderate Labour MP who entered parliament in 2024 and was, like others quoted, granted anonymity to speak frankly. “Someone has to pay the price for this failure,” a second, usually loyal, MP from the 2024 intake said, adding they “wouldn’t care” who exactly it was. In the minds of many of Labour’s own MPs and officials, the Mandelson affair has further weakened Starmer and McSweeney, who pushed for the appointment of his close ally and friend as ambassador in late 2024. After rows over a succession of tax and policy U-turns, some believe the Mandelson crisis exemplifies their criticisms of Starmer’s leadership — paying too little attention to a potential problem until it blows up into a full-blown scandal. “I love Morgan, but Keir has to sack him and he should have sacked him a long time ago,” said one Labour official who has long been loyal to the leadership. “The problem is, who does Keir replace him with?” TAINTED BY MANDELSON Starmer defended McSweeney to the hilt on Wednesday. “Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team,” he told MPs. “He helped me change the Labour Party and win an election. Of course I have confidence in him,” the PM said. Some MPs also rallied around Starmer, blaming an overexcited media narrative and MPs on edge for the next scandal. “This feels like a Westminster story at the moment rather than something terminal for the PM in the eyes of the public,” said a third Labour MP elected in 2024. But the mood in large parts of the party on Wednesday night was bleak. The latest round of bloodletting began in earnest on Monday, when emails released as part of the Epstein files appeared to show Mandelson leaking government financial discussions in the wake of the 2008 banking crash. Police are now investigating allegations of misconduct in public office. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the police investigation Tuesday evening. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. Starmer, like the rest of the British state and public, insists he did not know about the bombshell emails, and would never have appointed Mandelson if he did. Having already sacked Mandelson in September he is now obliterating his reputation, saying on Wednesday that Mandelson “lied repeatedly” during his appointment as ambassador.  Yet it was well known that Mandelson came with baggage. Starmer knew the former Labour Cabinet minister had been repeatedly sacked in scandal — and confirmed at the weekly Prime Minister’s Questions session on Wednesday that he had known Mandelson was friends with Epstein. “That was the moment,” said a fourth, moderate Labour MP. “The mood was awful. I had opposition MPs saying to me that they had not seen one that bad in decades.” Several Labour MPs and officials who spoke to POLITICO voiced fears that revealing details of the vetting process will paint Starmer and his chief of staff as too incurious about the wider situation. Mandelson had worked closely with McSweeney since the late 2010s and gave Labour informal advice in the run-up to its 2024 election landslide. One former No. 10 official said Mandelson was not on the list of potential ambassadors until McSweeney took over as chief of staff in October 2024, claiming: “Morgan didn’t do anything without speaking to Peter.” “Once the timeline — and the degree to which searching questions were asked — become clear, I think Morgan might be in trouble,” one U.K. government official added. Mandelson went through at least three layers of checks, a second U.K. government official said. Before his role was announced, the Cabinet Office carried out due diligence. Afterward, he was subjected to full deep security vetting. The third layer — and potentially the most problematic for Starmer and McSweeney — was a letter to Mandelson before his appointment from the chief of staff on the PM’s behalf. It asked three questions: why he continued contact with Epstein after his conviction, why he was reported to have stayed in one of Epstein’s home when the financier was in prison, and whether he was associated with a charity founded by Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell. A No. 10 official said reports that linked Mandelson to Epstein, including after he was first convicted, had been looked into as part of the appointment process. “Peter Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister, hid information that has since come to light and presented Epstein as someone he barely knew,” the No. 10 official added. HURRY UP AND WAIT Some Labour MPs — spooked by consistent polls putting Labour behind Nigel Farage’s populist Reform UK — are so angry that they want to see regime change immediately. For many on Labour’s left or “soft left” flank this was simply a chance to push their campaign against No. 10. One former minister, already hostile to the leadership, said it felt like the worst part of Starmer’s premiership and McSweeney should go now. Left-wing former Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn, long cast out of the party over comments on antisemitism, went on Sky News to say Starmer may even be challenged before local elections, which will be held across the U.K. in May. Others were new converts to immediate action. A fifth Labour MP, a moderate who entered parliament in 2024, also said McSweeney should go now. They lamented the “blind spot for many in the leadership” who allowed Mandelson to become ambassador. It has left some MPs angry and dejected. One, Sarah Owen, made an impassioned intervention in Wednesday’s debate: “Don’t we need to put the victims at the heart of this, not just ourselves?” But they will have to wait if they want the facts behind the case to become clear. MPs agreed on Wednesday night to release a series of documents concerning the diligence and vetting around Mandelson’s appointment, as well as communications he had with McSweeney, ministers, civil servants and special advisers in the six months before his appointment. Starmer had intended to block the release of any documents that would prejudice U.K. national security or international relations. But No. 10 staged a late climbdown after Angela Rayner — a key figure among MPs on Labour’s “soft left” who resigned as deputy prime minister amid a housing scandal in September — called for parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) to have a role. Officials scrambled to compile a new amendment that would give the ISC the final say on what is blocked. It will likely take days or weeks for the government to work through what needs to be released, and far longer for the ISC to work through the most contentious documents after that. The Met Police also released a statement on Wednesday night warning the release of specific documents “could undermine” its current investigation into Mandelson’s alleged misconduct in public office. The releases — which could include Mandelson’s private messages to friends in the Cabinet, such as Health Secretary Wes Streeting — will provide easy fodder to a British media gripped by the stories of Epstein’s friendships with Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew. But most MPs and officials who spoke to POLITICO agreed that No. 10 and McSweeney stand to lose the most. A second former No. 10 official said: “Lots of people are nice to creepy people in politics. But when it comes down to the brass tacks of who knew what or did what when they made the appointment — that’s the chopping block stuff.” A sixth Labour MP, on the left of the party, said even frontbenchers were “questioning why they should jeopardise their own positions to protect one individual [McSweeney].” But the question of “when” remains a key one.  One Labour figure loyal to Starmer’s No. 10 admitted there will be pressure for McSweeney to go now, but insisted anyone with an ounce of political sense would delay any move against him until after local elections in May — so that he could absorb the blame for any losses and protect the PM. Even a staunch ally of McSweeney — who has been at Starmer’s side since he first ran to be Labour leader — said they had no idea if he will survive. But a seventh Labour MP, elected in 2024, thinks questions over McSweeney’s future are a red herring. “It’s ultimately about the PM’s judgement,” they said. The fourth Labour MP quoted above added: “If one of them goes, the other one has to go too.” Esther Webber contributed reporting.

PARIS — Marine Le Pen recent public statements seem to indicate that she’s losing faith in her effort to quash the five-year election ban standing in the way of her becoming France’s next president. In her latest comments Tuesday, outside the gilded Parisian courtroom where she has been appealing since January an embezzlement conviction that knocked her out of the 2027 election, Le Pen told reporters: “I never expect a good surprise when I step into a courtroom.” But, she added: “I am a believer. I still believe in miracles.” The dour pessimism in those and similar comments is striking coming from a leader who had vowed to fight what she framed as politically motivated hit job. Le Pen even held a Stop-the-Steal-type rally last year after she and her codefendants were found guilty of misappropriating €4 million of European Parliament funds. But as the months have dragged on, Le Pen has seemed increasingly resigned, recognizing that her shot at the French presidency is slipping away just as her party, the National Rally, is enjoying an historic surge in popularity. Nonetheless, it’s possible the doom and gloom are all part of her strategy to express more contrition to get a more favorable verdict. Whatever it is, Le Pen has presented this appeal as her last chance to mount a bid for the Elysée Palace and acknowledged publicly that she may be forced to step aside in favor of her 30-year-old protégé, Jordan Bardella.  Tuesday’s sentencing recommendations appeared to confirm her suspicions at first.  Prosecutors asked the court to uphold her five-year electoral ban, but in an unexpected twist, argued against its immediate implementation.  Should the court agree, it offers Le Pen a small glimmer of hope. But it’s a legally complex and politically risky path back into the race, and one that Le Pen herself appears to be placing little hope in.  WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION?  In French criminal law, penalties are typically lifted when a defendant appeals a verdict to a higher court.   Part of the reason Le Pen’s initial sentence drew so much backlash is prosecutors argued — and the judges agreed — that her crimes were so grave that her ban on running for public office should be handed down immediately, regardless of whether she appeals.  But during the appeal the prosecution did not recommend immediate implementation because there was insufficient proof that Le Pen could commit further crimes if she is not sanctioned immediately.  SO, CAN LE PEN RUN FOR PRESIDENT?   In theory, if the appeals court rules in a manner that bars Le Pen from running in 2027 but does not order immediate implementation, she could appeal again to an even higher court — thereby lifting her ban temporarily. She would then need to hope that the gears of the justice system grind slowly enough to push the issue past the next election. But it’s not clear cut. Some French legal scholars have debated if and how a new appeal would lift her electoral ban at all. Le Pen has said she will make a final call once there is a verdict in the current appeal. She has also said she would drop out of the running if the electoral ban is upheld to avoid the risk of having the National Rally run its presidential campaign with no guarantee of who the candidate would be until the last minute — an ignominious end to a career dedicated to dragging her far-right party from the political fringes into the mainstream. It is unclear if a ban without immediate implementation, as sought by the prosecutors, changes her reasoning — but her comments to French broadcaster TF1-LCI after the prosecutors made their recommendation seemed to indicate that she’d still rule herself out in that eventuality. “If the prosecutors’ recommendations are followed, I won’t be able to run,” she said. Le Pen now has to hope that she’ll be acquitted, which appears unlikely, or that the case’s three-judge panel reduces or scraps her electoral ban. The judges are under no obligation to follow the prosecution’s recommendations. WHEN WILL THIS BE RESOLVED? The judges hearing the case are expected to render a verdict before the summer.   The Cour de Cassation, which would take up any ensuing appeal, has said it would aim to examine the case and issue a final ruling before the 2027 election “if possible.” 

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music In Litauen erreicht der Aufbau der Panzerbrigade 45 einen neuen Meilenstein: Die Multinational Battlegroup Lithuania wird offiziell unterstellt, Deutschlands bislang größtes Auslandsprojekt der Bundeswehr nimmt sichtbar Gestalt an. Rixa Fürsen berichtet direkt aus Kaunas über eisige Temperaturen, fehlende Infrastruktur und warum diese Brigade als Leuchtturm der Zeitenwende gilt. Außerdem: Außenminister Johann Wadephul wirbt in Canberra für ein neues Freihandelsabkommen. Warum Australien strategisch wichtiger wird – als Partner gegen Protektionismus, für Rohstoffsicherheit bei Lithium und Kupfer, und für eine regelbasierte Handelsordnung jenseits von Mercosur und Indien. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

The EU’s top sports official has sharply criticized FIFA President Gianni Infantino for saying that world football’s governing body should lift its ban on Russia competing in international tournaments.  Infantino said Monday that Russia, which was banned by FIFA following the country’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, should be allowed to compete again, claiming that bans and boycotts “create more hatred.” It would send a positive message to have “girls and boys from Russia” participating in football tournaments across Europe, he added.  European Sport Commissioner Glenn Micallef pushed back Wednesday, calling for the ban to remain in place in a social media post with the hashtag #YellowCardForFIFA.  “Sport does not exist in a vacuum. It reflects who we are and what we choose to stand for,” Micallef said. “Letting aggressors return to global football as if nothing happened ignores real security risks and deep pain caused by the war.”  Infantino’s remarks also drew a furious response from Ukraine.   “679 Ukrainian girls and boys will never be able to play football — Russia killed them,” said Ukraine’s Foreign Affairs Minister Andrii Sybiha on social media. “And it keeps killing more while moral degenerates suggest lifting bans, despite Russia’s failure to end its war.”  Moscow, unsurprisingly, embraced Infantino’s suggestion. “We have seen these statements [by Infantino], and we welcome them,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. “It’s high time to think about this.”  The U.S. is hosting the men’s World Cup this summer together with Mexico and Canada. Even if the ban were lifted, Russia could not compete as it did not take part in the qualifying rounds.  Infantino maintains close ties with Donald Trump and in December gave him the newly created FIFA Peace Prize — widely seen as a token honor — after the American president was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The sporting world is increasingly softening in its stance on Russian participation in tournaments, with International Olympic Committee President Kirsty Coventry signaling that Russian athletes shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of their government.

A Hungarian court on Wednesday sentenced German national Maja T. to eight years in prison on charges related to an assault on a group of right-wing extremists in Budapest two years ago. The case attracted national attention in Germany following the extradition of the defendant to Hungary in 2024, a move which Germany’s top court subsequently judged to have been illegal. Politicians on the German left have repeatedly expressed concern over whether the defendant, who identifies as non-binary, was being treated fairly by Hungary’s legal system. Hungarian prosecutors accused Maja T. of taking part in a series of violent attacks on people during a neo-Nazi gathering in Budapest in February 2023, with attackers allegedly using batons and rubber hammers and injuring several people, some seriously. The defendant was accused of acting alongside members of a German extreme-left group known as Hammerbande or “Antifa Ost.” The Budapest court found Maja T. guilty of attempting to inflict life-threatening bodily harm and membership in a criminal organization. The prosecution had sought a 24-year prison sentence, arguing the verdict should serve as a deterrent; the defendant has a right to appeal. German politicians on the left condemned the court’s decision. “The Hungarian government has politicized the proceedings against Maja T. from the very beginning,” Helge Limburg, a Greens lawmaker focused on legal policy, wrote on X. “It’s a bad day for the rule of law.” The case sparked political tensions between Hungary and Germany after Maja T. went on a hunger strike in June to protest conditions in jail. Several German lawmakers later visited to express their solidarity, and German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul called on Hungary to improve detention conditions for Maja T. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s illiberal government is frequently accused of launching a culture war on LGBTQ+ people, including by moving to ban Pride events, raising concerns among German left-wing politicians and activists over the treatment of Maja T. by the country’s legal system. Maja T.’s lawyers criticized the handling of evidence and what they described as the rudimentary hearing of witnesses, according to German media reports.

LONDON — Keir Starmer will strive for “maximum transparency” when releasing files on Peter Mandelson’s appointment as British ambassador to the U.S., a senior U.K. minister said Wednesday. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the prime minister wants to release as much information into the public domain about how Mandelson was appointed, his correspondence with ministers and his subsequent sacking last September over the former Labour peer’s friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “The prime minister’s going for maximum transparency here,” Streeting, a former friend of Mandelson, told Sky, though added the PM is “obviously drawing a line” by “not releasing information where it might compromise our national security and our security services, or where there may be information in there that might undermine international relations with other countries.” The opposition Conservatives have put forward a humble address — a parliamentary message to King Charles that was favored by Starmer during his time as leader of the opposition — calling for “all papers” relating to Mandelson’s appointment last year to be published. These include “due diligence which was passed to Number 10,” conflict of interest forms over his work in Russia and China, and correspondence (including electronic communications) between Mandelson, ministers and the PM’s Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney — who encouraged Starmer to send the then Labour peer to Washington. The government has published an amendment to the address accepting the Tories’ request, with the caveat that it will exclude “papers prejudicial to U.K. national security or international relations.” U.K. lawmakers will debate the substance of what should be released this afternoon. “What we’ve seen in recent days also is a prime minister acting rapidly to make sure that Peter Mandelson is stripped of all of the titles and privileges that were conferred on him through public service,” Streeting told the BBC, calling his behavior “so jaw-droppingly stupid and outrageous.” The Metropolitan Police confirmed Tuesday evening that Mandelson is under investigation for alleged misconduct in public office after it appeared he leaked sensitive government discussions at the height of the financial crisis to the late financier. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation on Tuesday evening. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. And in a Times Newspaper interview that was conducted before the most recent batch of Epstein files were released, Mandelson attempted to explain his historic association with the disgraced financier. “I don’t know what his motives were — probably mixed — but he provided guidance to help me navigate out of the world of politics and into the world of commerce and finance,” Mandelson told the newspaper. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation on Tuesday evening. Mandelson also resigned from the House of Lords and left Labour following the latest tranche of correspondence in the Epstein Files.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Im März stehen die ersten zwei von insgesamt fünf Landtagswahlen an. Baden-Württemberg und Rheinland-Pfalz sind der Auftakt. In der CDU derweil sind Vorschläge zur Abschaffung der”Lifestyle-Teilzeit” und der Streichung von Kassenleistung für den Zahnarztbesuch derweil Anlass für Unruhe. Die einen äußern sich, die anderen sind verärgert und kassieren die Ideen so schnell ein, wie sie gemacht werden.  Eine Partei sucht öffentlich ihre Linie und das macht die Wahlkämpfer unglücklich. Rasmus Buchsteiner berichtet von der Flatterstimmung und dem Versuch, unter anderem vor und auf dem CDU-Parteitag in Stuttgart den Schaden zu begrenzen. Außerdem bespricht er mit Gordon, wie die ausbleibenden Fortschritte bei den versprochenen Reformen die Situation mit ausgelöst haben. Gleichzeitig geht es für die SPD in den Umfragen bergauf. Zumindest in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Dort ist die AfD der Hauptgegner für die amtierende Ministerpräsidentin Manuela Schwesig. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht sie darüber, wie sie den Moment für sich nutzen und für ihre Partei nutzen will. Außerdem: Der Kanzler bricht heute zu seiner ersten offiziellen Reise in die Golfregion auf. Tom Schmidtgen vom Pro-Newsletter ‘Industrie und Handel am Morgen’ über den neuen wichtigen Partner Saudi-Arabien, der sich nicht nur seiner strategisch guten Lage, sondern auch seiner wirtschaftlichen Stärke bewusst ist.  Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

ATHENS — Greece’s parliament is expected to pass double-edged legislation on Wednesday that will help recruit tens of thousands more South Asian workers, while simultaneously penalizing migrants that the government says have entered the country illegally. Greece’s right-wing administration seeks to style itself as tough on migration but needs to pass Wednesday’s bill thanks to a crippling labor shortfall in vital sectors such as tourism, construction and agriculture. The central idea of the new legislation is to simplify bringing in workers through recruitment schemes agreed with countries such as India, Bangladesh and Egypt. There will be a special “fast track” for big public-works projects. The New Democracy government knows, however, that these measures to recruit more foreign workers will play badly with some core supporters. For that reason the bill includes strong measures against immigrants who have already entered Greece illegally, and also pledges to clamp down on the non-government organizations helping migrants. “We need workers, but we are tough on illegal immigration,” Greece’s Migration Minister Thanos Plevris told ERT television. The migration tensions in Greece reflect the extent to which it remains a hot button issue across Europe, even though numbers have dropped significantly since the massive flows of 2015, when the Greek Aegean islands were one of the main points of arrival. More than 80,000 positions for immigrants have been approved by the Greek state annually over the past two years. There are no official figures on labor shortages, but studies from industry associations indicate the country’s needs are more than double the state-approved number of spots, and that only half of those positions are filled. The migration bill is expected to pass because the government holds a majority in parliament. Opposition parties have condemned it, saying it ignores the need to integrate the migrants already in Greece and adopts the rhetoric of the far right. Under the new legislation, migrants who entered the country illegally will have no opportunity to acquire legal status. The bill also abolishes a provision granting residence permits to unaccompanied minors once they turn 18, provided they attend school in Greece. “Whoever is illegal right now will remain illegal, and when they are located they will be arrested, imprisoned for two to five years and repatriated,” Plevris told lawmakers. Human-rights groups also oppose the legislation, which they say criminalizes humanitarian NGOs by explicitly linking their migration-related activities to serious crimes.  The bill envisages severe penalties such as mandatory prison terms of at least 10 years and heavy fines for assisting irregular entry, providing transport for illegal migration, or helping those migrants stay. “Whoever is illegal right now will remain illegal,” Thanos Plevris told lawmakers. | Orestis Panagiotou/EPA Wednesday’s legislation also grants the migration minister broad powers to deregister NGOs based solely on criminal charges against one member, and will allow residence permits to be revoked on the basis of suspicion alone — undermining the presumption of innocence. Greece’s national ombudsman has expressed serious concerns about the bill, arguing that punishing people for entering the country illegally contravenes international conventions on the treatment of refugees. Lefteris Papagiannakis, director of the Greek Council for Refugees, was equally damning. “This binary political approach follows the global hostile and racist policy around migration,” he said.

When Russia sent Georgy Avaliani to fight in Ukraine, he did exactly what German leaders proposed: He ran. A pacifist who fled the front after being forcibly conscripted, he says he survived beatings and mock executions in a “torture basement” before escaping Russia altogether. Last week, Germany told him it would be safe to go back. In a letter, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) rejected the 47-year-old’s asylum application, concluding he was unlikely to face persecution if he returned to Russia — a decision that has alarmed networks helping Russian soldiers flee the war. Advocates for deserters say the ruling reinforces Russian President Vladimir Putin’s message that there is no safe exit for those who flee the front, as European governments harden asylum policies and as peace talks between Russia and Ukraine have stalled. “Even if I could escape death, I’d get sent to the front or face a 15-year prison sentence,” said Avaliani, who is planning to appeal the decision.  The rejection comes at a sensitive time for Russians seeking to rebuild new lives abroad.  The United States last summer began deporting asylum seekers back to Russia, with the latest planeload landing just last week. And in November the EU tightened its visa rules for Russian citizens. “European politicians say that Russians need to fight Putin, that they need to resist,” said Alexei Alshansky, a former sergeant-major turned analyst at A Farewell to Arms, a group that assists Russian deserters.  “At the same time, people who have actually refused to fight for Putin and have gone through a very difficult journey are not receiving any help from those same countries,” he added.  FLEEING THE WAR Avaliani was among tens of thousands of Russians who were served call-up papers in September 2022 as part of Putin’s “partial mobilization” drive. A construction engineer and father of three, Avaliani said he had made it clear from the outset that he wouldn’t fight. “This is not my war. I’m a pacifist,” he told POLITICO. But his appeals for an exemption on health and family grounds were rejected. Tens of thousands of Russians were served call-up papers in 2022. | Alexander Nemenov/AFP via Getty Images “It’s useless to try to fight the system,” he said. “If it wants to devour you, it will devour you. So I decided I had to act.” Within weeks of arriving at the front in eastern Ukraine, Avaliani fled — only to be captured and taken to what he describes as a “torture basement” in Russian-occupied Luhansk. There, he says, he was beaten and subjected to mock executions. The conditions, he said, were “inhumane.”  Returned to the front, he escaped again and was captured a second time. Finally, on his third try, he crossed into Belarus and from there traveled to Uzbekistan. While Avaliani lived in hiding abroad, he said, police visited his home and questioned his wife. In 2025 he and his family were reunited and applied for political asylum in Germany. CHANGE OF TUNE The decision to return Avaliani marks a stark reversal from Germany’s stance at the start of Russia’s full-on invasion of Ukraine. In September 2022, Marco Buschmann, then Germany’s justice minister, hailed the exodus of Russians of fighting age, saying on X that “anyone who hates Putin’s policies and loves liberal democracy is very welcome here in Germany.” The interior minister at the time, Nancy Faeser, echoed that sentiment, telling the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung newspaper that “anyone who courageously opposes President Vladimir Putin’s regime and therefore puts themselves in grave danger can apply for asylum in Germany on grounds of political persecution.”  In 2022 and 2023 about one in 10 Russian men of military age who reached Germany received some form of legal protection from the country. In 2024 and 2025 that number dropped sharply to around 4 percent.  The change coincided with a shift in the political climate. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government, which took office last May, has led a crackdown on migration, hoping to lure voters away from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) — now the largest opposition party in Germany’s Bundestag. The rejection letter that Avaliani received, seen by POLITICO, stated he was unlikely to face persecution in Russia beyond a fine. Russia, it added, is no longer actively mobilizing men. Friedrich Merz’s government has led a crackdown on migration. | Nadja Wohlleben/Getty Images When it comes to defectors like Avaliani, the letter concludes, there is no “considerable likelihood of concrete and sustained interest in them on the part of the Russian state or other actors.”  CARBON COPY Rights activists argue that the assessment of the German authorities denies what is going on in Russia. Many who were mobilized and sent to the front in 2022 have yet to come home. Russia continues to recruit some 30,000 soldiers monthly.  The letter to Avaliani reads like a carbon copy of rejections sent to other defectors, said Artyom Klyga, a lawyer with Connection, an organization that helps conscientious objectors.  “It’s like they [the authorities] use a single Word document, a template that they slightly adapt,” Klyga said.  He argued that German authorities fail to distinguish between draft dodgers — men who fled the country to avoid being mobilized — and defectors like Avaliani, who were actually served call-up papers.   For them, the risk of returning to Russia is not a fine but jail time or a forced return to the front.  Asked for a reaction, Germany’s BAMF migration office said it couldn’t comment on individual cases but noted that every asylum application “involves an examination of each individual case, in which every refugee story presented is carefully reviewed.” The agency added that protection is only granted to applicants with a well-founded fear of persecution. BURDEN OF PROOF In practice, some argue, applicants like Avaliani face an impossible burden of proof.  “Ultimately, [the German authorities] try to talk their way out of [granting asylum] with statistics,” said Peter von Auer, a legal expert at German refugee advocacy organization Pro Asyl.  “They argue that it is statistically unlikely that what asylum seekers suspect or fear will happen, will befall them.” Out of 8,201 Russian men of military age who have applied for asylum in Germany since 2022, just 416 — about 5 percent — were granted some form of protection, such as being given asylum status, according to figures provided by the government in response to a parliamentary question. Deserters presumably comprise a small minority of those cases, given the significant barriers faced by those who have already been drafted to make their way out of Russia and then on to Europe. Alshansky, the A Farewell to Arms co-founder, argued that deporting people like Avaliani undercuts Europe’s promise to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia. The asylum rejection “helps Putin to maintain the idea that it’s useless to run.” In fact, he said, the calculus is simple: “The more deserters there are, the easier it will be to defend Ukraine.”

5 TIMES THE WINTER OLYMPICS GOT SUPER POLITICAL Invasions, nuclear crises and Nazi propaganda: The Games have seen it all. By SEBASTIAN STARCEVIC Illustration by Natália Delgado /POLITICO The Winter Olympics return to Europe this week, with Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo set to host the world’s greatest athletes against the snowy backdrop of the Italian Alps. But beyond the ice rinks and ski runs, the Games have long doubled as a stage for global alliances, heated political rivalries and diplomatic crises.  “An event like the Olympics is inherently political because it is effectively a competition between nations,” said Madrid’s IE Assistant Professor Andrew Bertoli, who studies the intersection of sport and politics. “So the Games can effectively become an arena where nations compete for prestige, respect and soft power.” If history is any guide, this time won’t be any different. From invasions to the Nazis to nuclear crises, here are five times politics and the Winter Olympics collided. 1980: AMERICA’S “MIRACLE ON ICE” One of the most iconic moments in Olympic history came about amid a resurgence in Cold War tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The USSR had invaded Afghanistan only months earlier, and Washington’s rhetoric toward Moscow had hardened, with Ronald Reagan storming to the presidency a month prior on an aggressive anti-Soviet platform. At the 1980 Winter Games in Lake Placid, New York, that superpower rivalry was on full display on the ice. The U.S. men’s ice hockey team — made up largely of college players and amateurs — faced off against the Soviet squad, a battle-hardened, gold medal-winning machine. The Americans weren’t supposed to stand a chance. Then the impossible happened. In a stunning upset, the U.S. team skated to a 4-3 victory, a win that helped them clinch the gold medal. As the final seconds ticked away, ABC broadcaster Al Michaels famously cried, “Do you believe in miracles? Yes!” The impact echoed far beyond the rink. For many Americans, the victory was a morale boost in a period marked by geopolitical anxiety and division. Reagan later said it was proof “nice guys in a tough world can finish first.” The miracle’s legacy has endured well into the 21st century, with U.S. President Donald Trump awarding members of the hockey team the Congressional Gold Medal in December last year. 2014: RUSSIA INVADES CRIMEA AFTER SOCHI Four days. That’s how long Moscow waited after hosting the Winter Olympics in the Russian resort city of Sochi before sending troops into Crimea, occupying and annexing the Ukrainian peninsula. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych had fled to Moscow days earlier, ousted by protesters demanding democracy and closer integration with the EU. As demonstrators filled Kyiv’s Independence Square, their clashes with government forces played on television screens around the world alongside highlights from the Games, in which Russia dominated the medal tally. Vladimir Putin poses with Russian athletes while visiting the Coastal Cluster Olympic Village ahead of the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics. | Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images No sooner was the Olympic flame extinguished in Sochi on Feb. 23 than on Feb. 27 trucks and tanks rolled into Crimea. Soldiers in unmarked uniforms set up roadblocks, stormed Crimean government buildings and raised the Russian flag high above them. Later that year, Moscow would face allegations of a state-sponsored doping program and many of its athletes were ultimately stripped of their gold medals. 2022: RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE … AGAIN There’s a theme here. Russian President Vladimir Putin made an appearance at the opening ceremony of Beijing’s Winter Games in 2022, meeting on the sidelines with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping and declaring a “no limits” partnership. Four days after the end of the Games, on Feb. 24, Putin announced a “special military operation,” declaring war on Ukraine. Within minutes, Russian troops flooded into Ukraine, and missiles rained down on Kyiv, Kharkiv and other cities across the country. According to U.S. intelligence, The New York Times reported, Chinese officials asked the Kremlin to delay launching its attack until after the Games had wrapped up. Beijing denied it had advance knowledge of the invasion. 2018: KOREAN UNITY ON DISPLAY As South Korea prepared to host the Winter Games in its mountainous Pyeongchang region, just a few hundred kilometers over the border, the North Koreans were conducting nuclear missile tests, sparking global alarm and leading U.S. President Donald Trump to threaten to strike the country. The IOC said it was “closely monitoring” the situation amid concerns about whether the Games could be held safely on the peninsula. South Korean Vice Unification Minister Chun Hae-Sung, shakes hands with the head of North Korean delegation Jon Jong-Su after their meeting on January 17, 2018 in Panmunjom, South Korea. | South Korean Unification Ministry via Getty Images But then in his New Year’s address, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un signaled openness to participating in the Winter Olympics. In the end, North Korean athletes not only participated in the Games, but at the opening ceremony they marched with their South Korean counterparts under a single flag, that of a unified Korea. Pyongyang and Seoul also joined forces in women’s ice hockey, sending a single team to compete — another rare show of unity that helped restart diplomatic talks between the capitals, though tensions ultimately resumed after the Games and continue to this day. 1936: HITLER INVADES THE RHINELAND Much has been said about the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, in which the Nazi regime barred Jewish athletes from participating and used the Games to spread propaganda. But a few months earlier Germany also hosted the Winter Olympics in the town of Garmisch-Partenkirchen, allowing the Nazis to project an image of a peaceful, prosperous Germany and restore its global standing nearly two decades after World War I. A famous photograph from the event even shows Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels signing autographs for the Canadian figure skating team. Weeks after the Games ended, Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, a major violation of the Treaty of Versailles that was met with little pushback from France and Britain, and which some historians argue emboldened the Nazis to eventually invade Poland, triggering World War II.